Canada Case Law

Backfat Estate v. Siksika First Nation

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The appeals are dismissed as moot because the settlement agreement was executed by the Minister and became binding on Canada and Siksika Nation, so setting aside the Federal Court's approval would have no practical effect; the appellants did not obtain a stay and did not demonstrate separate live claims that would preserve a live controversy, and no public interest justified deciding the moot appeals.

Source excerpt

• Settlement approval
• Mootness
• Discontinuance
• Release and indemnity
• Leave/continuation of separate claims

Read case analysis

Treaty Land Entitlement Committee Inc. v. Canada (Indigenous and Northern Affairs)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court registered an arbitral award and declared Treaty Land Entitlement releases void after finding Canada’s unagreed Métis-consultation step caused a continuing event of default.

• Treaty land entitlement
• Additions to reserve policy
• Duty to consult
• Release and indemnity
• Event of default
• Declaratory relief

Read case analysis

Hutton v. Hutton

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court enforced a settlement reached in a family estates dispute, finding the plaintiff’s $250,000 offer was accepted and that later release negotiations did not undo it.

• Settlement enforcement
• Will variation
• Repudiation of contract
• Release and indemnity
• Disposition of chattels and cremains
• Enforcement under law and equity act

Read case analysis

Shannex Inc. v. Dora Construction Ltd.

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

A clear, unambiguous written release and indemnity negotiated with independent counsel and supported by consideration constitutes a juristic reason that defeats an unjust enrichment claim; applying amended Rule 13.04 the claimant had no real chance of success and summary judgment was properly granted to dismiss Upham's direct claims against Shannex, while Shannex's third party indemnity claim against Upham was not suitable for summary disposition because material issues arising from Dora's crossclaim remained unresolved.

Source excerpt

• Release and indemnity
• Summary judgment rule 13.04
• Builder's lien
• Juristic reason
• Conversion to application under rule 13.08
• Misrepresentation

Read case analysis

M.U. Rhino Renovations v. Dora Construction Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Although Shannex established that the written release likely barred Rhino’s contract and misrepresentation claims, the court refused summary judgment because Rhino’s pleaded unjust enrichment/quantum meruit claim raises genuine issues of material fact and equitable questions (including whether the release constitutes a juristic reason) that cannot be resolved on a Rule 13.04 motion and therefore a trial is required.

Source excerpt

• Summary judgment under rule 13.04
• Release and indemnity
• Misrepresentation
• Quantum meruit
• Builders lien
• Warranty obligations

Read case analysis